Field of Invention
This invention pertains to rowed watercraft by facilitating direct arm-and-leg-tandem production of forward-facing rowing.
Traditional rowing of a watercraft possesses the advantages of utilizing simple rowing apparatus and of those rowing apparatuses being intuitively obvious and satisfactorily effective to use: With traditional oarlocks serving as fulcrums the oars function as first class levers to which the rower directly applies force by pulling on the oar handles after the oar blades have been lowered into the water. The advantages are clear enough for the basic means of traditional rowing to have been in continual use for millennia. Nevertheless, traditional rowing also possesses two obvious disadvantages. First, it propels the rower backwards, and second, it limits the force that can be applied to the oars to that which the rower can exert directly through the hands in pulling on the oar handles. Overcoming these two disadvantages, whether singly or together, has been the goal of prior inventions.
Forward-facing rowing, considered singly, was a goal of U.S. Pat. No. 5,215,482 issued June 1993, to Henry; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,248,272 issued September 1993, to duPont, to cite recent examples. Henry""s 1993 innovation achieves forward-facing rowing while basically preserving traditional rowing technique by means of placing a direction transfer mechanism between two first class levers, allowing the first class lever on the handle end to pivot against the inside end of the other first class lever so that the blade end of the oar propels the watercraft in the opposite direction it would otherwise, which is to say, forward. DuPont""s 1993 innovation makes use of mechanical devices such as gears, torque shafts, looms, and a linkage assembly to accomplish forward-facing rowing.
However, no prior invention employs the admittedly obvious strategy of simply reversing the rowing motion to accomplish forward-facing rowing (that is, pushing the oar handle through the stroke phase of the rowing motion, rather than pulling it through the stroke phase as in traditional rowing). The obviousness of the xe2x80x9csolutionxe2x80x9d by itself is sufficient to explain why no prior art claims it as an invention, but there are further reasons. One problem with simply reversing the rowing motion is that the rower can no longer use her feet to push against the hull floor as a thrust abutment in support of the rowing motion while remaining seated in a watercraft. Though by supporting the back one can provide an alternative thrust abutment for use in forward-facing rowing, making use of that strategy would decrease the power applied to the oars by removing the force which is exerted by the back in traditional rowing. Alternatively, the rower could stand, thereby sacrificing the stability of a small watercraft; or the rower could lean forward from a seated position to row, thereby creating an uncomfortable and awkward rowing posture. The simple solution creates problems as large or larger than the problem it solves. Therefore, more complicated solutions, such as those cited, have been invented.
That traditional rowing limits the force that can be applied in propelling a watercraft to that which the rower can exert through the hands alone has also spurred prior inventions that have combined a strategy to add leg power to the oars which is not conducted through the hands with a strategy to achieve forward-facing rowing. U.S. Pat. No. 5,647,782 issued July, 1997, to Henry; U.S. Pat. No. 5,685,750 issued November, 1997, to Rantilla; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,109,988 issued August, 2000, to Dunn, Jr., are recent examples. Henry""s 1997 invention adds leg power to oars without directing it through the rower""s hands by means of a slidable inboard support assembly holding a support post and mounting bracket which is powered by the rower""s legs and feet. To accomplish this both inboard and outboard support assemblies are used in conjunction with dual pivot elements, an oar brace, and a stretcher assembly in addition to foot supports and an oarlock assembly. Rantilla""s 1997 invention uses cord attachments and pulleys and associated apparatuses to operate the oars. Dunn, Jr.""s invention also uses pulleys and associated apparatuses to operate the oars.
Again, no prior invention employs the simplest strategy, in this case adding a pedal attachment to the oars so that the rower can directly power the rowing motion with the use of the arms and legs together, instead of with the arms alone. And again, problems which arise upon considering the simple solution seemingly make it impracticable: attaching a pedal to the handle on traditional rowing apparatuses would cause transverse torquing of the oar and oarlock which would render the rowing ineffective and could break the oar or oarlock. Furthermore, any downward motion of the attached oar pedal which would be needed to swing the oar blade out of the water in the recovery phase of the rowing motion, would be blocked by the hull floor, unless the boat seat were raised, in which case the boat would become unstable unless the boat were large. In that case the advantage of adding leg power would be lost in that the greater force generated would be used up, in part or whole, on moving a larger watercraft. Moreover, an attempt to adjust handles far enough back to stay within reach when the legs are extended against the pedals can cause the handles to be placed behind the rower when the rower retracts the pedals to set up the next stroke. Again, the simplest solution creates problems as large or larger than the problem it solves. Therefore, more complicated solutions, such as those cited, have been invented.
No prior art employs strategies to achieve effective forward-facing rowing by simply reversing the rowing motion. Nor does any prior art achieve arm-and-leg-tandem production of the rowing motion by directly affixing a pedal attachment to the oars.
The present invention has as objects and advantages:
(a) providing design solutions making effective forward-facing rowing of a watercraft possible by simply reversing the rowing motion,
b) providing design solutions making it possible to add pedal bars and pedals directly to watercraft oars so that a rower can add force generated through the legs and feet directly to that generated through the arms and hands,
(c) to provide a recumbent seat for the rower to recline in while rowing; and
(d) to provide advantageous body mechanics to the rower by means of the recumbent seating position: as one moves the handles and pedals into place to begin the stroke phase of the rowing motion when using the present invention, one""s torso is positioned relative to one""s legs as when one crouches forward to stand up or crouches down to jump.
The crouch position just described above produces body mechanics by which a healthy person can generate 50-70% more force during the stroke phase of a rowing motion than is possible for the same healthy person using a racing scull.
With a recumbent seat positioned relative to handle-and-pedal assemblies directly attached to oars in such a way that a rower can produce maximum power for rowing a water craft, the present invention facilitates direct arm-and-leg-tandem production of forward-facing rowing.